RavenHawk Posted August 7, 2017 #351 Share Posted August 7, 2017 On 8/4/2017 at 5:22 AM, Khanivore said: Funnily enough, those of you who have read the Quran or claim to have done so probably cherry picked verses you were told to by some anti Islamic site that you googled. That’s not exactly true. Sure, most people start off with certain Ayahs, i.e. 2:255 and 9:5. But then you read the Surah for context. Do historical research. Then you begin to pickup on the concepts and find other places where these concepts are mentioned and start the whole process all over again. You might not stay consistent with it and put it down for a while but the process never ends because you are always finding something else. There is a vast amount of English Islamic sites out there. You don’t need to use the few anti-Islamic sites, although they are helpful. It’s good to get differing viewpoints. Those who claim that people who read the quran naturally become opposed to it as absolute tosh! It is those very people who read the quran from page 1 to the end, not cherry picking are the ones who convert Islam. I don’t know about that. I imagine that it just depends on how the message is received. But at the same time, I would think that conversion from (or people just leave) is higher than conversion to. All the hatred propagated falsely by media, social media, forums such as this I have no love for the MSM and I wouldn’t call it hatred but what about all the *hatred* propagated fairly by the media? lead people to investigate Islam and the Quran. A lot of these people usually initiate their research to ridicule the Quran and islam and end up becoming muslim themselves. My goal is not to ridicule the faith. I respect it too much. But it is dangerous. By your premise, I should have converted to Islam 40 years ago. To my knowledge, I have not converted, even as a closet Muslim. No doubt I could be a better Muslim than many. I’m too much of a Heretic Christian. I believe in Homoousion. That is why it is fastest growing religion in the west amongst the atheist, Christian natives especially, who convert to islam and the largest percentage of them are western women, well educated from all sorts of backgrounds. I can’t see any of the atheists here convert. The reason Islam is the fastest growing religion is because they are born into it. Muslims are just a baby factories. Most educated women that do convert to something are converting to Buddhism. Actually, they just merge Buddhism in with their native faith. Diamond Way is very popular in the West. Irony is if Islam is a religion of violence, degrading to women etc etc etc, you know the usual crusader myths still being propagated today, why do you flock to it more than any other religion? Women are perhaps more long suffering than men. Most women find it difficult to get out of a domestic abuse situation. They are trapped in it because that is all they’ve known. They don’t flock to it. The violence toward women in Islam is no myth. The acid attacks, honor killings, female circumcision, etc. were all done by Muslim men not following Muslim teachings?? Must be a Christian sect doing all of that? If women had solid support groups to empower them, Islam would fall apart. When will Islam grow up to accept its history and dogma? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RavenHawk Posted August 10, 2017 #352 Share Posted August 10, 2017 On 8/4/2017 at 5:22 AM, Khanivore said: http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/islam-muslim-terrorism-islamist-extremism-quran-teaching-violence-meaning-prophet-muhammed-a7676246.html I have just a few exceptions to this article…talk about a propaganda piece. This article cries out for comment. But let’s see how “demonstrably false” these three facts can be debunked. Anyone who says the Quran advocates terrorism obviously hasn't read its lessons on violence Or they have read it and understand the differences between Dar al-Islam and Dar al-Harb. Just as there are different levels of Jihad, so too are there different levels of violence allowed. The permission given in Quran 22:40-41 to fight in self-defence was not only granted to defend Muslims from persecution, What is rarely talked about is that the presence of Dar al-Harb is a threat to the Ummah. Influence of Dar al-Harb brings Shirk and Bida. Shirk is the most serious sin in Islam and Bida is right up there with it. That is provocation enough. Just as Muslims first cried out to Allah when nude women would circumambulate (tawaf) around the Kaaba because they were offended was provocation to end Immunity. but to defend Christians, Jews and people of all faiths from acts of terror like those committed by Isis today. Such protected peoples are called Dhimmi. These are subjugate populations. They amount to Muslim chattel. Only two groups in our society promote the “Quran teaches terrorism” myth: anti-Muslim pundits and Isis extremists. Both are wrong. Islamophobes fear the truth and Salafists embrace it. The rest of us observe it. Both are far from wrong. This statement is idyllic of Taqiya. Of course the Quran doesn’t “teach terrorism”, but it does teach to struggle against evil. To protect the Ummah and to purify the land. Terrorism is but one tool, short of Holy War. So it is still Jihad of the Hand (a greater Jihad as opposed to the lesser Jihad of Holy War). “Anti-Muslim” has a wide spectrum of divisions. It includes dissidents, those critical of the faith, and a few xenophobes. The first two know better than to get caught up in an inaccurate sound bite and the other can only see the hate. And you do realize that ISIS extremists are Salafists or Orthodox Islam? The bottom line is that the statement is misleading meant as propaganda. You can’t fool everyone. This simplistic conclusion ignores that many groups in many countries are experiencing terror right now. It doesn’t ignore that at all. There are many Kafir and Apostates in these countries. These are internal threats to the Ummah. It’s best to get your house in order as soon as possible. Don’t you think? It ignores the international arms trade from powerful western nations that wholly disregards human rights and has caused the death of more than 60,000 children in Yemen. And it ignores the fact that as Somalians suffer a massive famine Western media virtually ignores them – as it has ignored the Syrian crisis for the last several years. This is non-sequitur. Yet with attacks in Egypt, London and Syria, critics default to blaming the Quran, citing its allegedly “violent” verses. We cannot resolve the Syrian, Yemeni and Somalia atrocities until we adhere to justice. It’s just not violent verses as it is core concepts. There can’t be justice until Islam accepts that it is the source of the violence. And this attitude that Islam is all innocent isn’t helping. Islam needs to learn how to be humble. Once that happens, then we can have justice. Blaming the Quran for terrorism is not only demonstrably false, it wastes precious resources that could be spent on stopping war and famine. Blaming the Quran is appropriate. And it’s time well spent. If you want to stop war and famine, then Islam must reform. Quote Fact 1: The Quran requires that you read it in full. No “cafeteria Quran” here. As Quran 3:8 says, “We believe in it, the whole is from our Lord.” Isis and Islamophobes instead cherry pick. Quran 3:8 pre-emptively calls out people who cherry pick as “perverse” people, declaring, “…those in whose hearts is perversity seek discord and wrong interpretation of [the Quran].” But don’t some verses of the Quran in fact say, “kill them where ye find them?” Yes, hence we get to fact two. You don’t need to read the Quran from cover to cover to pick up on the main concepts. I haven’t read the Bible from cover to cover, but I understand the concepts. And when one is discussing a particular aspect, you are cherry picking anyway, especially in the way the Quran is laid out. If the discussion is on Shirk, you’re not going to discuss Hajj. Likewise, when discussing the violence in the Quran should not be distracted with other things – like cherry-picking itself. You’re going to want to know what it says about violence. I would love to be shown something that I haven’t read in the Quran yet that will somehow magically correct an incorrect thought. Until then nothing has changed. The reference is incorrect. It is actually 3:7 and it doesn’t say that you need to read the entire Quran to be able to discern the truth. The full Ayah is: “It is He who has sent down to you, [O Muhammad], the Book; in it are verses [that are] precise - they are the foundation of the Book - and others unspecific. As for those in whose hearts is deviation [from truth], they will follow that of it which is unspecific, seeking discord and seeking an interpretation [suitable to them]. And no one knows its [true] interpretation except Allah . But those firm in knowledge say, "We believe in it. All [of it] is from our Lord." And no one will be reminded except those of understanding.” – Sahih International. I always thought this Ayah was very clever. Allowing the Muslim (as the apparent expert) to utilize the unspecific to confuse the non-Muslim. It talks about the unspecific verses are usually wrongly interpreted (Bida), But My guess is that 2:255 and 9:5 are pretty precise. They are “foundation of the book”, so much so that they have their own titles. The Quran is broken up into 30 divisions called Juz. The 30th Juz is called Amma. It is the 36 shortest (last) Surrahs, mostly of the early Meccan period. This is a teaching text used in madrassahs. That seems to be teaching cherry picking to the youth. Introducing the child to only benevolent concepts until they are introduced to abrogation (2:106) and the Medinan Surahs. In essence, there is nothing wrong with that but arguing “cherry-picking” is weak. 2:256, 5:32, and 109:6 would seem to be unspecific in nature. They are common counters to those critical of Islam. These are usually taken out of context and easily misunderstood in order to support taqiya. You can’t discern these unless you know more precise ayahs. It’s interesting that these are used to defend Islam. Quote Fact 2: Islam is a practical faith that permits self-defence in certain strict situations. When? Let the Quran explain. First, the Prophet Muhammad and his companions patiently bore vehement persecution in Mecca for nearly 13 years. This included a three-year starvation boycott from which his wife Khadija later died. Muslims didn’t fight back. Next, Muhammad sent some companions to seek refuge in Abyssinia under a Christian King, and Muslims still didn’t fight back. Third, when the Prophet’s companions even asked to fight back, Muhammad responded clearly, “I have not been given permission to fight.” And, finally, when the persecution became unbearable, Muhammad and the Muslims simply left Mecca – still refusing to fight back. That is mildly putting it. Muslims didn’t fight back early on because they’d get their butt kicked. At the time, Mecca was the most open and tolerant city in the region. It was open to all religions. I believe that Mecca was where one of 6 Kaabas that Abraham had built. The Kaaba had become a common alter for all to worship their god at. But instead of coexisting with the pagans and other faiths, they intimidated and insulted parishioners and toppled their idols. You don’t endear yourself to others by doing that. It’s the typical message. To the non-Muslim it was “we are peaceful and tolerant”, “we just want to get along”, “we are your friend”. To the Muslim it was, the Shahada and that was all that was needed to stir up restlessness among his followers. This irritated the people of Mecca. These refugees trekked 240 miles through the desert to escape terrorism, finally arriving in the predominantly Jewish city of Medina. If Islam taught terrorism and enforced Sharia, this was the time to demonstrate this. Instead, Prophet Muhammad formed the Constitution of Medina with the Jews, establishing a unified secular state. I think it is more like 300 miles. The route to Yathrib followed the coastal plain with a way point at Badr. Depending on conditions, it probably took 10-14 days to Badr and then another 6 to Yathrib. I believe that there were 12 main clans in Yathrib and 3 of them were Jewish, although the Jews probably had the edge in trade. If Mecca was a tolerant city, then Yathrib was divided by strife between Jew and Arab. Sides were always changing. Some say that the city fathers (both Jew and Arab) invited Mohammad, others say he invited himself. But there was a need to unify the Arabs to bring peace and the Jews would retain their identity. I don’t think it was a group migration as in a caravan. The Muslims in Mecca were on their own to make the journey to Yathrib. Mohammad brought order to the chaos of Yathrib and that was a good thing but he imposed his law in an Islamic state. This was indeed the time and place to demonstrate it. Yet the extremists trying to kill Muslims in Mecca pursued the Muslims to kill them in Medina. The Meccans were not extremists. The Meccans didn’t chase Mohammad. They looked for him but didn’t know where he went. He escaped and hid to the south then after three days headed to Yathrib with Abu Bakr at his side. The Meccans wanted to kill him because he posed a threat to them. He was the bad seed. It wasn’t until Mohammad’s teachings started to bear fruit at Yathrib and Muslims threatened trade routes (which basically put Mecca into a siege) that the Meccans decided to take him out. But warfare was tribal. It was more about honor and a show of muscle. Organized fighting was not their forte and Mohammad had built a fighting army. After a few of the key leadership were killed, the Meccan army fell apart. After that, there was no more reason to fight, but the conquest continued. Surah 2 is considered as the first Medinan Surrah revealed. And in there you find the first reference to “fight them wherever you find them”. Sounds more like Mohammad wanted to get back at his tribe, not start a religion of peace. And now – finally – the Quran addressed fighting for the first time, permitting Muslims to fight in self-defence. The permission given in Quran 22:40-41 to fight was only given to “those against whom war is waged.” And fighting wasn’t just to defend Muslims from persecution – but to defend Christians, Jews, and people of all faiths. All subsequent verses addressing fighting are pre-conditioned on these clearly outlined rules of self-defense. Otherwise, it’s cherry picking, something the Quran forbids as perverse. I don’t know who is doing the research for this piece but the ayahs are 22:39-41, not 40-41. Not a big deal, it must be a different translation?? And it states: “Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged. And indeed, Allah is competent to give them victory. ” “[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right - only because they say, "Our Lord is Allah ." And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, there would have been demolished monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.” The first thing that comes to mind is, what about the Pagans who were wronged in the first place? Mohammad and his followers waged war on the Pagans first. But *being wronged* in the Muslim mindset is vague and subjective. Islam forbids Shirk and Bida so we know these things wrong the body. So something as simple as a differing belief is a wrong and must be fought. Those evicted deserved what was coming to them. It wasn’t because they said “Our Lord is Allah”. It was because they acted arrogantly toward the others. This passage doesn’t say anything about Muslims fighting to defend Christians, Jews, or people of all faiths including Pagans. If Allah was being taught in churches and synagogues then they were no longer churches or synagogues. But what’s interesting is that it mentions churches and synagogues as opposed to just the Kaaba which indicates an intention to expand. Surah 22 is in the later Medinan period so the Muslims had already been on many conquests. No one is cherry-picking these conditions. In the Muslim mindset, the concept of self-defense is very wide and broad. For non-Muslims, it is very narrow if at all existent. It just doesn’t work that way in the real world. Muslims need to learn that if they are serious about reforming. Additionally, Quran 2:193-194 declares that Muslims may only fight active combatants. Meaning, even if during battle an enemy combatant asks for amnesty, you must grant it. This offset continues but here you can expand the passage to include 190-194: “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed. Allah does not like transgressors. ” “And kill them wherever you overtake them and expel them from wherever they have expelled you, and fitnah is worse than killing. And do not fight them at al-Masjid al- Haram until they fight you there. But if they fight you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers. ” “And if they cease, then indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful. ” “Fight them until there is no [more] fitnah and [until] worship is [acknowledged to be] for Allah . But if they cease, then there is to be no aggression except against the oppressors. ” “[Fighting in] the sacred month is for [aggression committed in] the sacred month, and for [all] violations is legal retribution. So whoever has assaulted you, then assault him in the same way that he has assaulted you. And fear Allah and know that Allah is with those who fear Him. ” Anyone who holds a differing belief is an active combatant. A sinner is an active combatant. And what you get from this passage is that when that combatant submits to the will of Allah, then stop fighting, otherwise, they are still an active combatant. In Islam, there’s no such thing as “collateral damage,” mutilation, or torture. All this notwithstanding, fact three issues the death blow to Daesh and Islamophobe ideology. That statement is false and non-sequitur. No cutting off hands and stuff?? No death blow here… Quote Fact 3 You might now understand who the Quran refers to when it says “kill them where you find them”. The “them” are those terrorists who persecuted people for their faith, exiled them from their homes and then pursued to kill innocent people in their new homes. He’s just changing the label. “Them” refers to the Pagans and Polytheists (the people of Mecca). And the Muslims weren’t persecuted for their faith. They were persecuted for terrorizing the inhabitants of Mecca. They couldn’t play nice with others. In other words, “them” is close to a modern day Isis. The Quran permits killing terrorists in self-defence because they have waged pre-emptive war against you, or against Christians, Jews, or people of any faith. Yet, even then, if terrorists desist, the Quran forbids aggression against them. This teaching is not mere theory, it’s Islamic history. Wow! Conflate the victims as being ISIS. This author is really trying to stretch it. ISIS is orthodox Islam. They are following in the footsteps of Mohammad. I’m sure that ISIS fighters kept the glory of Badr and the Trench in mind as they forged ahead (as they still do till the last). They still hold out hope that Allah will turn the battle in their favor. That is Islamic history! It is on a mission to purify the land of corruption. Too many Muslims commit Shirk and Bida these days. ISIS has just taken upon themselves to be judge, jury, and executioner. The Quran permits killing in defense. Shirk and Bida threaten the body. That is what ISIS is doing. ISIS is involved in Jihad to protect the Ummah. Those that are innocent that die from Jihad will for sure be in Paradise. For those that are not innocent, they go to their just reward. But as ISIS appears to be waning for now in the Middle East, Hijrah is gaining speed in Europe. And now it is spreading to South East Asia. Prophet Muhammad did something remarkable when he returned to Mecca after 20 years. Having suffered brutal persecution and murder of even his own children, he offered blanket forgiveness, with the one condition that the Meccans accept universal freedom of conscience. He did not force Islam. He did not wage war. He did not imprison the city. He forgave. I suppose that is one way to look at it. He had his final revenge. It’s not that hard to impose control over a defeated population at sword point or even the implication of it. It wasn’t so much as forgiveness as it was his way to build an army under complete mind control. When you have them subjugated, why waste the resource? Meccans were enslaved in an ideology. Didn’t need prison walls as where would the inhabitants go? Hundreds of miles of desert and Muslim raiders in all directions. “Universal freedom of conscience” usually means a loss of freedom. As non-Muslim historian Stanley Lane-Poole attests: “The day of Mohammad's greatest triumph over his enemies was also the day of his grandest victory over himself. That is probably true. If I may use another literary reference, he had become Thulsa Doom. Doom’s triumph was not steel but flesh. I’m sure the character of Doom is patterned after Mohammad. He freely forgave the Koraysh all the years of sorrow and cruel scorn in which they had afflicted him and gave an amnesty to the whole population of Mecca.” It was his tribe, what better satisfaction than to see them swallow their pride. He didn’t give, he terrorized. That is the love and compassion that Islam and the Quran teach. That had nothing to do with love and compassion and everything to do with rubbing their nose in it, dominance and subjugation. Personally, this is what he had to do to unify Arabia. It is no different than what Charlemagne did 2 centuries later. That’s not the issue. The issue is trying to make the Quran (and Islam) out to be something else than what it is. It is a book on how to manipulate and dominate populations. That is not a text on love and compassion. It would be my guess that Tawhidi understands this and knows that his faith can be so much better if it reformed (focused on the love and compassion aspects). Perhaps if there was a new prophet? But as long as one Salafist still breathes, this will not happen. Any honest person can see that Isis represents Prophet Muhammad the way darkness represents light; the two are complete opposites. An honest person would read many biographies of Mohammad and make up their own mind. They would probably look over various polls of Muslims on Sharia law, suicide bombers, etc. They would begin to pick up on the basic concepts in the Quran. They might listen to various clerics or observe how Muslims respond to direct questions about Islam. They would probably study the history and track record of Islam. They would probably pick up on the arrogance. And that is probably the key here. As long as Muslims deny their history, the less likely there will be reform. This is what an honest person will see. Misconceptions about Islam creep in because people learn about the faith from headline news rather than from the Quran and the Prophet. Read the Quran, read a biography of Muhammad, seek out the True Islam education campaign. That’s just making excuses. What better way to learn about the faith than to study the scriptures and observe the actions of its adherents. By considering the actions of the minority, you can exclude the misconceptions. Salafists are not in the minority. The Jihad of education is the death blow to terrorism, and the lifeblood of universal human rights. And I invite you to that true Jihad. Wow! This is the hook, line, and sinker statement of propaganda. What is the Jihad of education? Truth or taqiya? Human rights has no place under Sharia. It is only the will of Allah. If the punishments laid out in the Quran are from Allah, what better treatment can man expect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podo Posted August 10, 2017 #353 Share Posted August 10, 2017 On 2017-08-06 at 1:36 PM, seanjo said: What is a moderate Moslem? As far as I know, all Moslem's believe that Sharia Law is supreme, and there is nothing moderate about Sharia Law. It's no different than a Christian who doesn't want the world to be run by the laws in Leviticus, or a Hindu who isn't a fan of the caste system. Muslims who don't want sharia are unfortunately rarer than either of the previous examples, but they definitely exist. Just like with every religion, there are shitbag examples and those who are lesser in the shitbag department. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Podo Posted August 10, 2017 #354 Share Posted August 10, 2017 Just now, seanjo said: Christians, IMO, shouldn't even look at the Old Testament, only the new (the teachings of Christ) should apply to Christians. If you follow that then Christianity is a great way to live, forgiveness, turning the other cheek, loving thy neighbour as thyself, all sorts of nice hippy stuff in the New Testament. If only the world's Christians agreed with you 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now